A multicenter study of the Ambu® laryngeal mask in nonparalyzed, anesthetized patients

被引:25
作者
Hagberg, CA
Jensen, FS
Genzwuerker, HV
Krivosic-Horber, R
Schmitz, BU
Hinkelbein, J
Contzen, M
Menu, H
Bourzoufi, K
机构
[1] Univ Texas, Med Sch Houston, Dept Anesthesiol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[2] Gentofte Univ Hosp, Dept Anaesthesiol, Hellerup, Denmark
[3] Univ Hosp Mannheim, Inst Anesthesiol & Intens Care Med, Mannheim, Germany
[4] Hop Jeanne de Flandre, Clin Anesthesie Reanimat, Lille, France
关键词
D O I
10.1213/01.ANE.0000184181.92140.7C
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
We designed this multicenter trial to evaluate the performance and safety of the Ambu (R) laryngeal mask, a new disposable supraglottic airway device, in patients scheduled for elective surgery. One-hundred-eighteen nonparalyzed, anesthetized patients (ASA physical status I-II, age, 18-65 yr, body mass index, 18-30 kg/m(-2)) receiving total IV anesthesia were included in this study. After device insertion, fiberoptic position and oropharyngeal leak pressure were determined at an intracuff pressure of 60 cm H2O. Ease of ventilation was determined by controlling ventilation at 6 mL/kg tidal volume. Any complications were noted and recorded. Device placement was successful in all patients on the first or second attempt (92.4% or 7.6%, respectively) with an insertion time (removal of face mask until first tidal volume) of 44.9 +/- 37.91 s. Adequate ventilation was achieved in all patients and the vocal cords could be visualized by fiberoptic endoscopy in 91.5% of patients. Oropharyngeal leak pressures were 24.1 +/- 5.44 cm H2O. Blood was detected on the device in 8.5% of patients. Complications and patient complaints were minor and quickly resolved. The Ambu laryngeal mask is easy and quick to insert and provides a safe and efficient seal during positive pressure ventilation in nonparalyzed patients scheduled for elective surgery.
引用
收藏
页码:1862 / 1866
页数:5
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], LARYNGEAL MASK ANEST
[2]   THE LARYNGEAL MASK - A NEW CONCEPT IN AIRWAY MANAGEMENT [J].
BRAIN, AIJ .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1983, 55 (08) :801-805
[3]   A comparison of the disposable versus the reusable laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed adult patients [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
Keller, C ;
Morris, R ;
Mecklem, D .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1998, 87 (04) :921-924
[4]   Emergence characteristics and postoperative laryngopharyngeal morbidity with the laryngeal mask airway: a comparison of high versus low initial cuff volume [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
Holyoake, L ;
Keller, C ;
Barry, J ;
Mecklem, D ;
Blinco, A ;
Weidmann, K .
ANAESTHESIA, 2000, 55 (04) :338-343
[5]  
BRIMACOMBE J, 1993, ANESTH ANALG, V76, P457
[6]   A multicenter study comparing the ProSeal™ and Classic™ laryngeal mask airway in anesthetized, nonparalyzed patients [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
Keller, C ;
Fullekrug, B ;
Agrò, F ;
Rosenblatt, W ;
Dierdorf, SF ;
de Lucas, EG ;
Capdevilla, X ;
Brimacombe, N .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2002, 96 (02) :289-295
[7]   Stability of the LMA-ProSeal® and standard laryngeal mask airway in different head and neck positions:: a randomized crossover study [J].
Brimacombe, J ;
Keller, C .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIOLOGY, 2003, 20 (01) :65-69
[8]   A comparison of the reinforced and standard laryngeal mask airway: Ease of insertion and the influence of head and neck position on oropharyngeal leak pressure and intracuff pressure [J].
Buckham, M ;
Brooker, M ;
Brimacombe, J ;
Keller, C .
ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, 1999, 27 (06) :628-631
[9]   Randomized crossover comparison of the ProSeal with the classic laryngeal mask airway in unparalysed anaesthetized patients [J].
Cook, TM ;
Nolan, JP ;
Verghese, C ;
Strube, PJ ;
Lees, M ;
Millar, JM ;
Baskett, PJF .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2002, 88 (04) :527-533
[10]   A randomized controlled trial comparing the ProSeal™ laryngeal mask airway with the laryngeal tube suction in mechanically ventilated patients [J].
Gaitini, LA ;
Vaida, SJ ;
Somri, M ;
Yanovski, B ;
Ben-David, B ;
Hagberg, CA .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2004, 101 (02) :316-320